-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Aonuma on Zelda Wii U: "I think well be able to make something new like OoT was."
- Thread starter BY2K
- Start date
LegendofLex
Member
I was just thinking earlier today how difficult this one was to find. You can easily get lost in that forest if you don't keep track of which paths will lead you in circles!
Spring-Loaded
Member
I want a spinner that works like and travels as fast as Totoro's hover-top thing from My Neighbor Totoro.
And a cat-bus mount
And a cat-bus mount
Theanine3D
Member
Don't know about you but I've never played 3D Zelda for the combat. Enemies have always been too easy in every game for it to be a highlight. Only the Iron Knuckle and its variants ever really posed a fun challenge. Puzzles and exploration were always the #1 focus for me in 3D Zelda.
2D Zelda is different, I actually enjoy and look forward to the combat, just because the games are (IMO) generally harder.
If they make Zelda U more about combat than puzzles they're gonna have to seriously beef up the enemies, because they've never been much of a challenge in past 3D entries.
2D Zelda is different, I actually enjoy and look forward to the combat, just because the games are (IMO) generally harder.
If they make Zelda U more about combat than puzzles they're gonna have to seriously beef up the enemies, because they've never been much of a challenge in past 3D entries.
Yes all this and alttp
Brumfieldhm
Member
I think people are reading too much into the "western food vs eastern food" comment..I think Aonuma meant to emphasize the difference between the two cuisines, not make a remark about a "western" influence on the game.
Solid first post and welcome aboard
I completely agree with what you're saying. I think 'Open World' actually covers a huge array of possible sub-genres. My suspicion is that Nintendo will be attempting to carve out their own.
Colour me excited either way.
Neff
Member
Evil lies
Kinda agree.
Personally, I'd prefer a Zelda-game without any smaller enemies randomly strolling around every 20-30 meters. Rather, have every single combative encounter be memorable, facing off against a real danger. The Iron Knuckles were exactly that back in the days. I'd also like combat situations in Zelda-games to be open-ended; meaning that running away is also a valid option. Typical Zelda just throws you into a death pit against a boss and you either win or lose. I'd like that to be different.
Maybe let me explore the insides of a natural cave. Slowly proceeding, the screen almost pitchblack, only the lantern brightening up the center of the screen, flickering non-endingly. You spend a good 10 minutes in the depths of this mountain cave, when you encounter a giant four-legged reptile, some creepy looking 20m long monster with dead, white eyes and thin, arced teeth. You draw your sword, give your best. But your best is not enough. You realize you will die if this keeps going. So instead you go back from where you came. Or you find another opening to a new caveway and jump to safety in there. The point is, you don't have to beat the monster. You can. It might leave an item, if you defeat. Maybe a heart piece. Maybe an optional item like the boomerang in Link's Awakening. But you can also fully ignore it, it doesn't matter to the bigger story if that creepy boss stays there or not. Better even if there's small stories about that monster that some villagers tell. Have it be a mystery, an adventure that the player gets to explore himself, instead of being told to.
Some smaller enemies are fine, too, but remember traversing Hyrule field in Twilight Princess? So many enemies simply stand around inmidst of nowhere, and it doesn't matter if you fight them or not. And even if you decide to fight them, it's no challenge at all. This is filler design of the worst kind.
brandonh83
Banned
As a fan of Twilight Princess, after replaying the HD version there is no way it's better than Skyward Sword. While it has its own minor annoyances, the game is just much more visually interesting and fun to play. It has padding but I mostly found said padding to be more fun and engaging than Twilight Princess'. Honestly it's probably the most underrated game I've ever played going by all the negativity I see it get online, despite the reviews being glowing.
The reviews got it right.
Indigo Rush
Neo Member
When Aonuma talks about "Western" influence, I'm not sure he necessarily means visually, since, I agree, it most definitely looks Eastern (and gorgeous for it!). I have to wonder if we're reading too much into the "Western" flavor of food comment, maybe he's just using colorful vocabulary to say that the "soul" and "flavor" of this Zelda won't be the same as it's been since Ocarina/ALttP.
Between the talks of changing dungeon order, open world and re-thinking long-established conventions, I'm certain that this all means that it will draw more from the first Zelda game, but I suppose that's an obvious observation. Either way, I hope the sense of freedom and challenge from the first game carries over. I don't want it to be brutal like Dark Souls, but I want to feel like my knowledge of Link's sword and weapons combat will be used throughout the game for both small enemies and huge bosses.
and btw, hi, first post on GAF if I'm not mistaken c:
brandonh83
Banned
LegendofLex
Member
Compare to Zelda 1, where you're liable to be killed if you wander the overworld carelessly, or Zelda II, where it actually matters if you fight enemies since doing so makes you stronger. (This is technically also true of Zelda 1, where you need money to buy a lot of the better equipment, and you only get money from enemies.)
There's an actual risk vs. reward mechanism at play when the enemies are actually threats that can and will kill you. This no longer exists in modern Zelda, so the combat feels like pointless filler.
Dark Cloud
Member
I'm definitely excited from everything I've heard Aonuma say, especially doing dungeons out of order. I can't wait for the full blowout of Zelda U!
Exactly. But just to be clear: I wouldn't want a Zelda-game to put its focus on combat. Rather, I want a Zelda-game that focuses on player agenda, giving me choice and options. Make enemies tough, but also give me the option to not fight at all (that's what makes games like Deus Ex or Metal Gear Solid so great).
One of the best first posts I've had the pleasure to read here, welcome aboard Dirac!
Agree with every single point there. That sense of discovery, of true adventure, it's such a joyful feeling. Wind Waker gave me that once I was freed from plot-mandated chains and could explore the sea at my own leisure. Seeing what kinda quirky island they decided to stick in this map square, suddenly stumbling into the abode of a Great Fairy, or into the sights of vicious Big Octo, or hell, some malicious toad deity who invoked a friggin' hurricane and granted you the power to warp across the ocean were you to defeat him. Not to mention submarines, the ghost ship...My favorite overworld in a Zelda game yet.
Right now I'm playing Twilight Princess HD, enjoying the game much more than I did back in the day (especially coming after Skyward Sword as the last console experience, a game I'm glad to have beaten but which you won't find me touching ever again), and Hyrule Field is definitely enormous but also lacking in things to do, other than traversing from point A to B. However! I am really enjoying whatever little secrets they DO place in there, like spotting a Poe or a golden bug all of a sudden, or the random encounter with a chest or even a piece of heart out in the open. I greatly enjoy the caves you can come across with, and which host several enemies, Poes, rupees to spare, plus a piece of heart at the end. I'm willing to recognize the overworld could stand to have much more things to do in it, but the ones there being so few and far between, when the map's so large, it makes me value those encounters more.
That said! I'm sure the Zelda team could make a world vaster than Twilight Princess' was and cram it with secrets and mysteries left and right. The thought of not only "you can go to these mountains!" but "Do that and who knows what you'll find!" is very enticing.
crooked spin
Member
An Aonuma quote regarding puzzle-solving and progression from the very first Zelda reveal video at E3 '14. I've been re-watching some of these videos and thought I'd share this for people wondering about the open nature of the world and Kotaku's reference to "unexpected" puzzles.
Give it traditional controls and then we'll talk.
I was waiting for SS to let me become some honorary Skyloft guard so I could fly around at night. Honestly, I was just hoping there'd be more inhabiting the floating islands than just Skyloft and a pumpkin bar, and a couple minigames.... and the bugs.
LegendofLex
Member
By which you mean you wouldn't want Zelda to just become a series of battle arenas where you only progress by killing all enemies, right?
I don't think anyone wants this. They might want the kinds of enemy-rich combat scenarios from the enemy gauntlet challenges to bleed over quite a bit more into the overworld and dungeons, though. Currently I play these sections of the game and wonder "why wasn't there anything this tough in the main story?"
I think TP is the best Zelda but I would agree that SS got the overworld and challenges between dungeons correct whereas TP sometimes stumbled in giving you meaningful tasks. I enjoyed the light bug hunt when it goes to Lake Hylia and traveling on top of a warthog to reach a prison in the Gerudo Desert. However, for every one of the good ones, you also had a boring one like hunting for statues to reach the City in the Sky or catching a certain type of fish to get a scent to Snowpeak.
It's a pretty mixed bag in terms of tasks.
SS didn't really have those lulls except for the odd case here and there. What it did with the overworld was pretty fantastic too. You hopped on a boat and explored a Sand Sea for christsakes! How often do you do that in games? They created some inventive scenarios.
LegendofLex
Member
SS has better (see: richer) map design for most of the individual "zones." Couple that with more demanding combat and marginally better pacing as you first approach an area between dungeons and I could definitely see how someone would see TP as dull in comparison.
I don't think the "tasks" themselves are necessarily the big differentiator.
I want to feel as giddy as the time I saw the 2004 TP trailer.
Paraphrasing Iwata (
), I want to say "wow".Well, right now the Zelda-series is a combination of battle arenas with forced fighting (aka boss fights) and insignificant battles against minor enemies that are more of an annoying, more than anything else. I´d like both to change, see the rest of my posting you're quoting. No more death pit battles, no more filler battles. Option, option, option - that is the keyword I want to apply to the Zelda-series
brandonh83
Banned
It's funny you mention this because people are always complaining about the overworld in Skyward being bad, but they're just referring to the sky. The sky isn't just the overworld. It's more of a means to an end. You use it to quickly get between locations. It isn't meant to be a big, full "overworld" in the sense that they're thinking and I think, trying not to sound like an ass, but that's an incredibly narrow-minded view as that's not at all the intention. The game has many locations filled with secrets and things to do, as you mentioned. I consider the "overworld" to be the sky, which housed Skyloft, Pumpkin Landing, the bug island, several smaller islands you could explore for items, Thunderhead, etc.
That's not too bad in of itself, but then you have the entirety of Lanayru (mines, desert, etc), Faron Woods, the deep woods, the water place, Eldin volcano... and all of these locations have plenty of content and shit to do. Like I really don't get where people are coming from. The game's world is laid out differently than usual, yet there are complaints about it even though they don't jive at all with how the game's world is actually laid out. People aren't actually taking it for what it really is. They just look at the sky as the entire overworld when it's more like a hub, and there's still stuff to do there. It's not really different from Ocarina, how Hyrule Field was mostly a big empty circle used to get to points of interest.
If you're flying around the sky endlessly thinking "there's nothing to do!" then you're not playing the game right. You use the sky to get to points of interest, and how much content should a sky theoretically have? Skyloft, Thunderhead and the other places I mentioned are part of the sky and they're not empty. Playing Skyward Sword I was never bored and was always doing something. So I certainly wasn't flying aimlessly around the sky complaining that I didn't have anything to do in it. It's just weird to me. I mean, just an opinion I guess, but this is why I can't personally relate to the complaints about it, as that's not really how they approached the design of the world.
For real. This thread motivated me to replay Skyward Sword, and while I think the motion is useful it really doesn't mesh with my play "style." I like to lounge on the couch which makes it hard to play with the motion control which typically needs to have a proper orientation. This is really obvious with the bird control.
Ironically the split nature of the wiimote and the nunchuck actually facilitates this but the motion does not.
LegendofLex
Member
Well, right now the Zelda-series is a combination of battle arenas with forced fighting (aka boss fights) and insignificant battles against minor enemies that are more of an annoying, more than anything else. I´d like both to change, see the rest of my posting you're quoting. No more death pit battles, no more filler battles. Option, option, option - that is the keyword I want to apply to the Zelda-series
I'm just clarifying whether by "I don't want Zelda to put its focus on combat" you mean "I don't think Zelda should add more and more challenging combat scenarios."
TBH, I'm not sure what you're asking for - options not to engage in battles at all - is totally realistic (as a universal rule) without some kind of Deus Ex level stealth/non-lethal takedown mechanic, something I don't see the series doing. I could see more options a la Zelda 1 where you could bomb your way through walls to get past a lot of the arena fights or a la Zelda II where you could trick your way through locked doors, though.
I don't see the series sacrificing simplicity (i.e., adding more and more complex rules and mechanics) for the sake of freedom; I see the series using simplicity (i.e., letting players exploit the already simple rules and mechanics) as a pathway to freedom.
brandonh83
Banned
My second playthrough was while I was in bed sick. I lounged through the entire game with minimal effort. The only thing that broke it somewhat was the bomb rolling, which you actually have to work with the Wii remote a bit to do that. But combat, traversal, aiming, and so on... totally fine and easy to do while "lounging." Same for Twilight Princess.
I dunno. I think there could be a fluctuation somehow, for some reason between individual consoles, like lighting/room size/and other variables that might manipulate the experience. I've never had any trouble with the motion controls but other people swear they're broken. I played most Wii games like I did any other game or with any other traditional controller and ran into little issue.
crooked spin
Member
Here's a (rather crude) rendition of LTTP's map in 3d. Really shows how small it would feel if you played in an over-the-shoulder perspective. I'd definitely be down to play a Zelda game with a larger map built like this as long as you eventually gain traversal abilities that allow you to go anywhere (which is the point of "open world" AFAIK). No problem with funneling players via walls/barriers earlier in the game.
brandonh83
Banned
E3 is when the flood will happen, and if it's still coming by the end of the year (you know it will be November when this and NX launches) I'd expect a steady flow from that point until then.
It doesn't have to be to the level of Deus Ex (though I wouldn't oppose that!). But simply giving the player the choice how to proceed the adventure. There are certain fixed events that have to be reached and accomplished. Like, say, defeating Ganondorf. When you're face to face with the greatmaster of evil, you don't require dialogue options or the option to poison him beforehand. That is the final showdown and it is good versus evil.
But I'd like to have more options for most of the remainder of the game. Especially for an open world-Zelda. You're in a forest, no map, nobody tells you where to go. You chose a direction. You encounter a dark nut-like enemy. You fight it, but its too strong, so you circle it and proceed. In another direction, you would have found the aforementioned mountain cave. In yet another direction, you'd reach a lake area where beautiful mermaids welcome you and teach you how to swim. Sometimes you see monsters appear on the horizon or just the dark silhouettes of two little bokoblins patroulling and having a loud, fun chat with each other. Sometimes you fight them when you see the chance, other times you avoid them meeting with you, because it's not your current goal to fight them or because you know there might be a bigger predator around. (you don't happen to know the anime "Hai to Gensou no Grimgar", do you?)
It is this kind of level of acceptance for the fantastical world that unfolds in front of the player's eyes that I envision for the Zelda-franchise. Such a world needs option. Not every boss battle needs to be full of options. But even the little that we had when fighting Ghoma in Ocarina of Time was nice. In case you don't remember: You could either fight her the normal way, or you could shoot her when she's crawling at the ceiling, which would make her fall down and she wouldn't stand up again, giving you time to finish her off with your sword in one go. Felt good.
You make it sound like the game would suffer accessibility. That would be true a little bit, but only because of the higher difficulty in general, not the raised complexity. Moreover, I'd claim the Zelda-franchise has become way too simplistic and straight-forward. Hence my dislike for Skyward Sword, which is really one linear path, without an overworld to explore. SS doubled down on all the parts I don't like or don't want that much about Zelda.
The areas in WW were not optional and I'd say they were more manageable than most scenarios I encountered in OoT or MM.
Granted I never played WW Hero Mode (because I don't have WWHD).
I tried SS in Hero Mode and it's harder but also less interesting.
I mean the heart as a reward to the player is kinda important, it's good to reward the player for beating a foe that could be challenging with a bit more life.
Other M showed that not giving rewards of any kinds for combat absolutely does make the game worse and less interesting.
I don't expect TP HD to change my mind on Hero mode.
I would prefer a more organic difficulty, like Zelda 1 where the ballance was finely tuned despite how simple it is.
Combat shouldn't be a chore and should be rewarding if you gained no rewards from combat in Souls games no one would be praising the encounter design there.
Hero is more of a bandaid (that is stuck in post game in new Zelda games to boot).
SS showed that they're not uninterested in providing a challenge to the player, most of the combat is great there already. The issue is that there shouldn't be only 1 solution to a situation.
You shouldn't have to rely on your sword (and only your sword) to defeat a specific enemy.
I think we can agree however it makes no sense to give access to this at the very beginning of the game.
The very end is probably pushing it a bit but for the 3/5th of the game it could fit nicely.
LegendofLex
Member
As a baseline, it sounds like you're basically describing the original The Legend of Zelda and don't really need Zelda to do anything new or foreign to the series.
But, truthfully, you're also describing the current structure in Zelda games - you don't have to engage most enemies, if you don't want to. The caveat, of course, is that current Zelda games simply pepper enemies around the world for the sake of having enemies, not because the existence of the enemies makes the overworld challenging.
I think a comparison to Xenoblade Chronicles X might be more appropriate. There are enemies everywhere. Some of them are easy to take on from the beginning, some of them are tougher and should be avoided until you're more powerful/better at exploiting the battle mechanics. You have to be aware of your surroundings even when just fighting smaller enemies, because a larger enemy could pop up if your battles aggro it, or if night falls and it suddenly shows up. You could probably reach most of the map without fighting a single enemy if you really wanted to, but you'll be making things a lot easier on yourself if you fight monsters and get stuff that you can use to buy better gear.
There are some rough non-optional enemy gauntlets in TWW, but they aren't found until the end of the game when you're doing the Triforce hunt. Generally in dungeons, though, you might fight 1-2 tough enemies at a time, tops. Compare to older Zelda games which were full of rooms with various mixes of enemies which couldn't be mowed down as easily.
As for the OoT-TWW comparison: You could be attacked by as many as 10+ enemies at a time in TWW. In OoT, you might have to fight two at once, and the harder ones would ignore you if you weren't targeting them even if you were fighting more than one. That's what I mean when I say TWW has more legit tough moments than OoT.
Yes, but now the heart is something that you find everywhere, even in the grass and jars in the middle of a fight, without actually beating any of the enemies. In OG Zelda, hearts were a reward you could almost never count on finding unless you knew how to exploit the counters, and you could only get it from killing enemies.
This was never the problem with SS. Have you actually tried fighting enemies with items other than a sword? It's both possible and really really fun.
The problem with SS is that enemy aggression was generally poor. Enemies sat there exposing their weak spot before attacking. This is really a repeat of what past 3D Zeldas were generally already doing, but the degree of precision required from MotionPlus made the "they're waiting for you to attack" element that much more prominent since it was implemented in a much more forgiving way.
Why not? I love trying to make it to the far corners of the map in LoZ with three hearts, the green tunic, and the wooden sword. I look forward to trying to beat Level 6 with that setup one day. If that's not possible, what's the point of making the game non-linear in the first place?
One of the first things I did when playing Skyrim was go in the exact opposite direction the game was telling me to go. I promptly got my ass handed to me by vampire warlocks.
Oh my god Last Unicorn freaked me out as a kid, seems cool though, my fav Zelda's MM anyways.
And don't worry about that, there are much worse first posts, happy to have you here bud
Hm, the problem with the current Zelda structure is that you do have to fight most enemies, because only then will, magically, appear a small key, or magically the doors will re-open and badly, game-y designed stuff like that. I'd like to do away with all of that stuff. Find a way to incorporate puzzles that fit in the context. See Portal.
Yeah, that's a great comparison, although obviously the enemy density of XCX would be way too high for a Zelda-game, even moreso the one I'm describing. But yeah, the feeling when you're sneaking by a Level 68 enemy when you yourself are level 12 - that was great.
For most of you in this thread I would highly recommend Matthewmatosis's Legend of Zelda reviews, if at the very least his final comparison video and where he wants the series to go in the future. His opinions on what makes the series great and what he'd like to see going forward match up very well with my own desires, though he doesn't touch upon a specific things, but the general direction is right on. Overall very good evaluation of what each game from OoT to SS does right and where they come up short.
Full list here.
Full list here.
I may be wrong, I don't remember any enemy encounters that were particularly fun apart from that 1 cave that you HAD to do.
It's true that there's nothing like the nightmare of Zelda 1 with a room with 3 darknuts and 4 wizrobs trying to murder you (actually yes but they appear in sequence instead of being just Link getting a special order of whoopass).
I won't even talk about Zelda 2 I didn't have the opportunity to really dig into it yet.
You could easily dispatch any non major enemy in WW so they were pretty much non factors. OoT and MM were limited by the n64 so of course enemy count tend to be a bit anemic at times. However I'd argue that since you didn't have win button sword fight before WW, the game was more challenging that way.
I think going back to OG Zelda with only having hearts drop from enemy could be a good compromise. And a bit more aggression too, I mean in WW and TP you get hearts because otherwise you're not at full life or something!
I didn't really like enemy design in SS so that may be why I didn't try to experiment that much.
I mean I think I tried everything on Darknuts in TP and there's some kind of good surprises at time.
The enemy being absurdly sturdy also make it fun.
In SS my fav fight were against the stalfos but there's like 2 in the game :/
And you're correct the game became even less frantic due to that.
Heck the 1rst boss is nearly waiting for you to attack the whole fight.
If they wanted it, he could murder the hero and actually make sense.
I don't disagree with that, heck XenoX is really fun because you can play while really pushing your luck.
But I don't think it's sound to give access to boss of level 150 at the very beginning....
Blackbriar
Neo Member
First post here so go easy on me.
I've never played a (console) Zelda title that I didn't think was great. I always feel like I get my moneys worth. I'm confident that Zelda Wii U will continue the tradition of building on the Zelda formula and adding it's own unique flavor to the design. If we take the last few console Zeldas each one brought a different flavor that I appreciated.
OoT
- The day/night cycle was awesome. I loved how the environments, enemies and shops all changed during each cycle. Puzzles could only be solved during one or the other.
- The sense of adventure was strong with memorable characters and side quests.
- Riding Epona felt magical.
TWW
- I recently replayed the HD version on Wii U and I had forgotton how much freedom this game offered to just sail the high seas and explore. I loved searching every nook and cranny of every island for secrets and lore.
- I personally love the art style of this entry. It's timeless and distinct.
- The facial expressions were full of life and added life to the characters.
TLoZ: TP
- I loved the length of the quest. I like "padding" I guess. I'm obsessive over collecting everything so it took me a good while with all of the bugs, poe souls, etc.
- This Zelda was darker in tone. The "incident" in Kakariko village where people got munched by the twilight monsters is a good example where early on you knew enemies weren't messing around.
- The story revolving around Midna was good. Midna is my favorite sidekick in any Zelda game because she's such a smart ass and full of sarcasm. I loved seeing she and Link's relationship evolve as the story progressed.
- I really liked the final boss battle with Ganon in both forms. It felt epic.
SS:
- I loved the motion controls. Best combat in a Zelda entry hands down.
- Great dungeons. The desert and mines being particular favorites.
- It felt like a fresh departure from some of the old Zelda formulas.
- Clever puzzles.
- I liked the boss battles because of the complexity that the motion controls brought to combat. It really felt like a duel in some of them.
Just my two cents. I think it's healthy for the community to argue for and against design decisions that Nintendo makes with the series, but ultimately for me I'm sure I'll love whatever they come up with. Haven't been disappointed yet.
I've never played a (console) Zelda title that I didn't think was great. I always feel like I get my moneys worth. I'm confident that Zelda Wii U will continue the tradition of building on the Zelda formula and adding it's own unique flavor to the design. If we take the last few console Zeldas each one brought a different flavor that I appreciated.
OoT
- The day/night cycle was awesome. I loved how the environments, enemies and shops all changed during each cycle. Puzzles could only be solved during one or the other.
- The sense of adventure was strong with memorable characters and side quests.
- Riding Epona felt magical.
TWW
- I recently replayed the HD version on Wii U and I had forgotton how much freedom this game offered to just sail the high seas and explore. I loved searching every nook and cranny of every island for secrets and lore.
- I personally love the art style of this entry. It's timeless and distinct.
- The facial expressions were full of life and added life to the characters.
TLoZ: TP
- I loved the length of the quest. I like "padding" I guess. I'm obsessive over collecting everything so it took me a good while with all of the bugs, poe souls, etc.
- This Zelda was darker in tone. The "incident" in Kakariko village where people got munched by the twilight monsters is a good example where early on you knew enemies weren't messing around.
- The story revolving around Midna was good. Midna is my favorite sidekick in any Zelda game because she's such a smart ass and full of sarcasm. I loved seeing she and Link's relationship evolve as the story progressed.
- I really liked the final boss battle with Ganon in both forms. It felt epic.
SS:
- I loved the motion controls. Best combat in a Zelda entry hands down.
- Great dungeons. The desert and mines being particular favorites.
- It felt like a fresh departure from some of the old Zelda formulas.
- Clever puzzles.
- I liked the boss battles because of the complexity that the motion controls brought to combat. It really felt like a duel in some of them.
Just my two cents. I think it's healthy for the community to argue for and against design decisions that Nintendo makes with the series, but ultimately for me I'm sure I'll love whatever they come up with. Haven't been disappointed yet.
LegendofLex
Member
I think at some point you have to start introducing contrivances that exist solely to force you to fight enemies, otherwise you'll run into a situation where every one of those doors that doesn't open or chest that doesn't appear until you kill everything in the room will just become another tired implementation of the same puzzles you find throughout the rest of the game.
On paper, it sounds like it'd just be a less contrived version of the same thing. You have to carefully aim a bomb arrow at a rock across the room, or something, and that's really tough to do when you have a bunch of enemies aggroed. So you have to kill all the enemies before you can open the way, just like you would have with a magical door. And there's a logic there that seems less forced than a magic door that seals until you kill all the enemies. What's the problem, right?
The problem is that Zelda-style puzzles themselves become a kind of contrivance once you try to multiply them across every single scenario where you might have wanted to demand that players engage enemies. They're already basically just a lock-and-key formula, where you see a rock and you toss a bomb at it and repeat ad nauseum for the rest of the game. It wouldn't actually enrich the game to replace the magic doors with more Zelda puzzles, so they might as well keep the magic doors since they serve a specific functional purpose without compounding the extent to which puzzle ideas become played out across the rest of the game.
Alternatively, if you really don't have to engage the enemies in the first place, you get a situation where the most expedient thing to do is always just run past the enemies to the chest/the door. Unless, as I said, Zelda starts focusing much more on stealth, which I think would be a really really bad idea.
I tried going back to Skyward Sword, I just can't push myself to finish it a second time simply because of the controls.
I recall one of the enemies in the desert dungeon requires you to do a horizontal slash to kill it, but because of how precise the slash has to be and difficulty with the controller I thought I wasn't correctly fighting the creature until I killed it by accident.
Skyward Sword still has a lot of other things that could be tweaked in a potential HD remaster (cutting down on how many times you have to fight a certain boss for example >.>) But if the controls alone would change I could at least appreciate the game for it's gameplay aspect a lot more then I did with the wiimote.
It's not a "failure," and I wouldn't consider it to even be a total change in direction either. You still roam around a large world, meeting people and discovering different "cultures" as you do in every Zelda. You still find your way into dungeons where you gain new items and abilities that allow you to solve puzzles in order to advance. You still search out hidden secrets like heart pieces and faeries in order to power up. You basically do all of the same shit as ever, just with a different structure and less emphasis on dungeons.
Dee Dah Dave
Member
My main wish for Zelda is to increase the difficulty, in both the combat and puzzles.
The puzzles in particular are my main gripe, the recent games have largely been rehashes of puzzles that have come before. I want some real brain teasers!
I can pretty much auto pilot a Zelda game these days, and that's boring.
The puzzles in particular are my main gripe, the recent games have largely been rehashes of puzzles that have come before. I want some real brain teasers!
I can pretty much auto pilot a Zelda game these days, and that's boring.